HE. 


GIFT  OF 


GIFT 
B  231913 


THE  OBLIGATIONS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AS 
TO  PANAMA  CANAL  TOLLS 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.   ELIHU 


OF   NEW    YORK 


IN   THE 


SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


JANUARY  21,  1913 


74G95— 11714 


WASHINGTON 
1913 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.   ELIIIU  ROOT. 


(  PANAMA    CANAL   TOLLS. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Mr.  President,  in  the  late  days  of  last  sum- 
mer, after  nearly  nine  months  of  continuous  session,  Congress 
enacted,  in  the  bill  to  provide  for  the  administration  of  the 
Panama  Canal,  a  provision  making  a  discrimination  between 
the  tolls  to  be  charged  upon  foreign  vessels  and  the  tolls  to  be 
charged  upon  American  vessels  engaged  in  coastwise  trade.  We 
all  must  realize,  as  we  look  back,  that  when  that  provision  was 
adopted  the  Members  of  both  Houses  were  much  exhausted ;  our 
minds  were  not  working  with  their  full  vigor ;  we  were  weary 
physically  and  mentally.  Such  discussion  as  there  was  was  to 
empty  seats.  In  neither  House  of  Congress,  during  the  period 
that  this  provision  was  under  discussion,  could  there  be  found 
more  than  a  scant  dozen  or  two  of  Members.  '  The  provision 
has  been  the  cause  of  great  regret  to  a  multitude  of  our  fellow 
citizens,  whose  good  opinion  we  all  desire  and  whose  leader- 
ship of  opinion  in  the  country  makes  their  approval  of  the 
course  of  our  Congress  an  important  element  in  maintaining 
that  confidence  in  government  which  is  so  essential  to  its 
success/  The  provision  has  caused  a  painful  impression  through- 
out the  world  that  the  United  States  has  departed  from  its 
often-announced  rule  of  equality  of  opportunity  in  the  use  of 
the  Panama  Canal,  and  is  seeking  a  special  advantage  for  itself 
in  what  is  believed  to  be  a  violation  of  the  obligations  of  a 
treaty.  Mr.  President,  that  opinion  of  the  civilized  world  is 
something  which  we  may  not  lightly  disregard.  "A  decent  re- 
spect to  the  opinions  of  mankind"  was  one  of  the  motives 
stated  for  the  people  of  these  colonies  in  the  great  Declaration 
of  American  Independence.^^" 

74695—11714  3 


257155 


The  effect  of  the  provision  has  thus  been  doubly  unfortunate, 
and  I  ask  the  Senate  to  listen  to  me  while  I  endeavor  to  state 
the  situation  in  which  we  find  ourselves;  to  state  the  case  which 
is  made  against  the  action  that  we  have  taken,  in  order  that  I 
may  present  to  the  Senate  the  question  whether  we  should  not 
either  submit  to  an  impartial  tribunal  the  question  whether  we 
are  right ;  so  that  if  we  are  right,  we  may  be  vindicated  in  the 
eyes  of  all  the  world,  or  whether  we  should  not,  by  a  repeal 
of  the  provision,  retire  from  the  position  which  we  have  taken. 

In  the  year  1850,  Mr.  President,  there  were  two  great  powers 
in  possession  of  the  North  American  Continent  to  the  north  of 
the  Rio  Grande.  The  United  States  had  but  just  come  to  its  full 
stature.  By  the  Webster-Ashburton  treaty  of  1842  our  north- 
eastern boundary  had  been  settled,  leaving  to  Great  Britain 
that  tremendous  stretch  of  seacoast  including  Nova  Scotia, 
New  Brunswick,  Newfoundland,  Labrador,  and  the  shores  of 
the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  now  forming  the  Province  of  Quebec. 
In  1846  the  Oregon  boundary  had  been  settled,  assuring  to  the 
United  States  a  title  to  that  vast  region  which  now  constitutes 
the  States  of  Washington,  Oregon,  and  Idaho.  In  1848  the 
treaty  of  Guadalupe-Hidalgo  had  given  to  us  that  great  empire 
'wrested  from  Mexico  as  a  result  of  the  Mexican  War,  which 
now  spreads  along  the  coast  of  the  Pacific  as  the  State  of 
California  and  the  great  region  between  California  and  Texas. 

Inspired  by  the  manifest  requirements  of  this  new  empire, 
the  United  States  turned  its  attention  to  the  possibility  of 
realizing  the  dream  of  centuries  and  connecting  its  two  coasts — 
its  old  coast  upon  the  Atlantic  and  its  new  coast  upon  the 
Pacific — by  a  ship  canal  through  the  Isthmus;  but  when  it 
turned  its  attention  in  that  direction  it  found  the  other  empire 
holding  the  place  Of  advantage.  Great  Britain  had  also  her 
coast  upon  the  Atlantic  and  her  coast  upon  the  Pacific,  to  be 
joined  by  a  canal.  Further  than  that,  Great  Britain  was  a 
Caribbean  power.  She  had  Bermuda  and  the  Bahamas;  she  had 
Jamaica  and  Trinidad ;  she  had  the  Windward  Islands  and  the 
Leeward  Islands ;  she  had  British  Guiana  and  British  Honduras ; 
she  had,  moreover,  a  protectorate  over  the  Mosquito  coast,  a 

74695—11714 


great  stretch  of  territory  upon  the  eastern  shore  of  Central 
America  which  included  the  river  San  Juan  and  the  valley  and 
harbor  of  San  Juan  de  Nicaragua,  or  Greytown.  All  men's 
minds  then  were  concentrated  upon  the  Nicaragua  Canal  route, 
as  they  were  until  after  the  treaty  of  1901  was  made. 

And  thus*"when  the  United  States  turned  its  attention  toward 
joining  these  two  coasts  by  a  canal  through  the  Isthmus  it 
found  Great  Britain  in  possession  of  the  eastern  end  of  the 
route  which  men  generally  believed  would  be  the  most  avail- 
able route  for  the  canal.  Accordingly,  the  United  States  sought 
a  treaty  with  Great  Britain  by  which  Great  Britain  should  re- 
nounce the  advantage  which  she  had  and  admit  the  United 
States  to  equal  participation  with  her  in  the  control  and  the 
protection  of  a  canal  across  the  Isthmus.  From,  that  came  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 

Let  me  repeat  that  this  treaty  was  sought  not  by  England  f 
but  by  the  United  States.  Mr.  Clayton,  who  was  Secretary  of 
State  at  the  time,  sent  our  minister  to  France,  Mr.  Rives,  to 
London  for  the  purpose  of  urging  upon  Lord  Palmerstou  the 
making  of  the  treaty.  *The  treaty  was  made  by  Great  Britain 
as  a  concession  to  the  urgent  demands  of  the  United  States. 

I  should  have  said,  in  speaking  about  the  urgency  with  which 
the  United  States  sought  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  that  there 
were  two  treaties  made  with  Nicaragua,  one  by  Mr.  Heis  and 
one  by  Mr.  Squire,  both  representatives  of  the  United  States. 
F»ach  gave,  so  far  as  Nicaragua  could,  great  powers  to  the 
United  States  in  regard  to  the  construction  of  a  canal,  but 
they  were  made  without  authorization  from  the  United  States, 
and  they  were  not  approved  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  and  were  never  sent  to  the  Senate.  Mr.  Clayton,  how- 
ever, held  those  treaties  ia  abeyance  as  a  means  of  inducing 
Great  Britain  to  enter  into  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty.  He 
held  them  practically  as  a  whip  over  the  British  negotiators, 
and  having  accomplished  the  purpose  they  were  thrown  into 
the  waste  basket. 

*By  that  treaty  Great  Britain  n greed  with  the  United  States       . 
that  neither  Government  should  "ever  obtain  or  maintain  for 
74695—11714 


6 

itself  any  exclusive  control  over  the  ship  canal " ;  that  neither 
would  "  make  use  of  any  protection  "  which  either  afforded  to  a 
canal  "  or  any  alliance  which  either "  might  have  "  with  any 
State  or  people  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  or  maintaining  any 
fortifications,  or  of  occupying,  fortifying,  or  colonizing  Nicara- 
gua, Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  coast,  or  any  part  of  Central 
America,  or  of  assuming  or  exercising  dominion  over  the  same," 
and  that  neither  would  "  take  advantage  of  any  intimacy,  or 
use  any  alliance,  connection,  or  influence  that  either "  might 
"  possess  with  any  State  or  Government  through  whose  terri- 
tory the  said  canal  may  pass,  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  or 
holding,  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  citizens  or  subjects  of 
the  one,  any  rights  or  advantages  in  regard  to  commerce  or 
navigation  through  the  said  canal  which  shall  not  be  offered  on 
the  same  terms  to  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  other." 

You  will  observe,  Mr.  President,  that  under  these  provisions 
the  United  States  gave  up  nothing  that  it  then  had.  Its  obliga- 
tions were  entirely  looking  to  the  future;  and  Great  Britain 
gave  up  its  rights  under  the  protectorate  over  the  Mosquito 
coast,  gave  up  its  rights  to  what  was  supposed  to  be  the  eastern 
terminus  of  the  canal.  And,  let  me  say  without  recurring  to 
it  again,  under  this  treaty,  after  much  discussion  which  ensued 
as  to  the  meaning  of  its  terms,  Great  Britain  did  surrender  her 
rights  to  the  Mosquito  coast,  so  that  the  position  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  became  a  position  of  absolute  equality. 
Jnder  this  treaty  also  both  parties  agreed  that  each  should 
"  enter  into  treaty  stipulations  with  such  of  the  Central  Ameri- 
can States  as  they  "  might  "  deem  advisable  for  the  purpose  " — • 
I  now  quote  the  words  of  the  treaty — "  for  the  purpose  of  more 
effectually  carrying  out  the  great  design  of  this  convention, 
namely,  that  of  constructing  and  maintaining  the  said  canal  as 
a  ship  communication  between  the  two  oceans  for  the  benefit  / 
of  mankind,  on  equal  terms  to  all,  and  of  protecting  the  same." 
\s  That  declaration,  Mr.  President,  is  the  cornerstone  of  the 
rights  of  the  United  States  upon  the  Isthmus  of  Panama, 
rights  having  their  origin  in  a  solemn  declaration  that  there 
should  be  constructed  and  maintained  a  ship  canal  "between  the 
two  oceans  for  the  benefit  of  mankind,  on  equal  terms  to  all." 

74G95— 11714 


In  (lie  eighth  article  of  that  treaty  the  parties  agreed: 

\The  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  having  not 
only  desired,  in  entering  Into  this  convention,  to  accomplish  a  par- 
ticular object,  but  also  to  establish  a  general  principle,!  they  hereby 
a.-.vn-e  to  extend  their  protection,  by  treaty  stipulations,/to  any  other 
practicable  communications,  whether  by  canal  or  railway,  across  the 
isthmus  which  connects  North  and  South  America,  and  especially  to 
the  interoceanic  communications,  should  the  same  prove  to  be  prac- 
ticable, whether  by  canal  or  railway,  which  are  now  p/oposed  to  bo 
established  by  the  way  of  Tehuantepec  or  Panama,  (in  granting, 
however,  their  joint  protection  to  any  such  canals  or  railways  as  are 
by  this  article  specified,  it  is  always  understood  by  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  that  the  parties  constructing  or  owning  the  same 
shall  impose  no  other  charges  or  conditions  of  traffic  thereupon  than 
the  aforesaid  Governments  shall  approve  of  as  just  and  equitable ; 
and  that  the  same  canals  or  railways,  being  open  to  the  citizens  and 
subjects  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  on  equal  terms,  shall 
also  be  open  on  like  terms  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  every  other 
State  which  is  willing  to  grant  thereto  sfcch  protection  as  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  engage  to  afford.  I 

There,  Mr.  President,  is  the  explicit  agreement  for  equality 
of  treatment  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  to  the 
citizens  of  Great  Britain  in  any  canal,  wherever  it  may  be  con- 
structed, across  the  Isthmus.  <That  was  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple embodied  in  the  treaty  of  1S50.  And  we  are  not  without 
an  authoritative  construction  as  to  the  scope  and  requirements 
of  an  agreement  of  that  description,  because  we  have  another 
treaty  with  Great  Britain — a  treaty  which  formed  one  of  the 
great  landmarks  in  the  diplomatic  history  of  the  'world,  and 
one  of  the  great  steps  in  the  progress  of  civilization — the  treaty 
of  Washington  of  1871,  under  which  the  Alabama  claims  were 
submitted  to  arbitration.  Under  that  treaty  there  were  provi- 
sions for  the  use  of  the  American  canals  along  the  waterway  of 
the  Great  Lakes,  and  the  Canadian  canals  along  the  same  line  of 
communication,  upon  equal  terms  to  the  citizens  of  the  two 
countries. 

Some  years  after  the  treaty,  Canada  undertook  to  do  some- 
thing quite  similar  to  what  we  have  undertaken  to  do  in  this 
law  about  the  Panama  Canal.  It  provided  that  while  nominally 
a  toll  of  20  cents  a  ton  should  be  charged  upon  the  merchandise 
both  of  Canada  and  of  the  United  States  there  should  be  a  rebate 
of  IS  cents  for  all  merchandise  which  went  to  Montreal  or 
beyond,  leaving  a  toll  of  but  2  cents  a  ton  for  that  merchandise. 
74695—11714 


8 

The  United  States  objected;  and  I  beg  your  indulgence  while  I 
read  from  the  message  of  President  Cleveland  upon  that  subject, 
sent  to  the  Congress  August  23,  1888.  He  says : 

By  article  27  of  the  treaty  "of  1871  provision  was  made  to  se- 
cure to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  the  use  of  the  Welland,  St. 
Lawrence,  and  other  canals  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada  on  terms  of 
equality  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  Dominion,  and  to  also  secure  to 
the  subjects  of  Great  Britain  the  use  of  the  St.  Clair  Flats  Canal  on 
terms  of  equality  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States. 

The  equality  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  Dominion  which  we  were 
promised  in  the  use  of  the  canals  of  Canada  did  not  secure  to  us  free- 
dom from  tolls  in  their  navigation,  but  we  had  a  right  to  expect  /that 
we,  being  Americans  and  interested  in  American  commerce,  would  be 
no  more  burdened  in  regard  to  the  same  than  Canadians  engaged  in 
their  own  trade  ;  and  the  whole  spirit  of  the  concession  made  was,  or 
should  have  been,  that  merchandise  and  property  transported  to  an 
American  market  through  these  canals  should  not  be  enhanced  in  its 
cost  by  tolls  many  times  higher  than  such  as  were  carried  to  an  ad- 
joining Canadian  market.  All  our  citizens,  producers  and  consumers 
as  well  as  vessel  owners,  were  to  enjoy  the  equality  promised. 

And  yet  evidence  has  for  some  time  been  before  the  Congress,  fur- 
nished by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  showing  that  while  the  tolls 
charged  in  the  first  instance  are  the  same  to  all,  such  vessels  and  car- 
goes as  are  destined  to  certain  Canadian  ports — 

Their  coastwise  trade — 

are  allowed  a  refund  of  nearly  the  entire  tolls,  while  those  bound  for 
American  ports  are  not  allowed  any  such  advantage. 

To  promise  equality  and  then  in  practice  make  it  conditional  upon 
.our  vessels  doing  Canadian  business  instead  of  their  own,  is  to  fulfill 
a  promise  with  the  shadow  of  performance. 

Upon  the  representations  of  the  United  States  embodying  that 
view,  Canada  retired  from  the  position  which  she  had  taken,  re- 
scinded the  provision  for  differential  tolls,  and  put  American 
trade  going  to  American  markets  on  the  same  basis  of  tolls  as 
Canadian  trade  going  to  Canadian  market^  She  did  not  base 
her  action  upon  any  idea  that  there  was  no  competition  between 
trade  to  American  ports  and  trade  to  Canadian  ports,  but  she 
recognized  the  law  of  equality  in  good  faith  and  honor ;  and  to 
this  day  that  law  is  being  accorded  to  us  and  by  each  great 
Nation  to  the  other. 

I  have  said,  Mr.  President,  that  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty 
was  sought  by  us.  In  seeking  it  we  declared  to  Great  Britain 
what  it  was  that  we  sought.  I  ask  the  Senate  to  listen  to  the 
declaration  that  we  made  j;o  induce  Great  Britain  to  enter  into 
that  treaty— to  listen  to  it  because  it  is  the  declaration  by  which 
we  are  in  honor  bound  as  truly  as  if  it  were  signed  and  sealed. 
74695—11714 


9 

Here  I  will  read  from  the  report  made  to  the  Senate  on  the 
5th  day  of  April,  1900,  by  Senator  Cushman  K.  Davis,  then 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  So  you  will 
perceive  that  this  is  no  new  matter  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  and  that  I  am  not  proceeding  upon  my  own  authority  in 
thinking  it  worthy  of  your  attention. 

Mr.  Rives  was  instructed  to  say  and  did  say  to  Lord  Palmer- 
ston,  in  urging  upon  him  the  making  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  this* 

The  United  States  sought  no  exclusive  privilege  or  preferential  right 
of  any  kind  in  regard  to  the  proposed  communication,  and  their  sincere 
wish,  if  it  should  be  found  practicable,  was  to  see  it  dedicated  to  the 
common  use  of  all  nations  on  the  most  liberal  terms  and  a  footing  o^ 
perfect  equality  for  all. 

That  the  United  States  would  not,  if  they  could,  obtain  any  exclusive 
right  or  privilege  in  a  great  highway  which  naturally  belonged  to  all 
mankind. 

That,  sir,  was  the  spirit  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention. 
That  was  what  the  United  States  asked  Great  Britain  to  agree 
upon.  That  self-denying  declaration  underlaid  and  permeated 
and  found  expression  in  the  terms  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  con- 
vention. And  upon  that  representation  Great  Britain  in  that 
convention  relinquished  her  coign  of  vantage  which  she  herself 
had  for  the  benefit  of  her  great  North  American  empire  for  the 
control  of  the  canal  across  the  Isthmus. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.     Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from  New 
York  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Iowa? 

Mr.  ROOT.     I  do,  but 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  I  will  ask  the  Senator  from  New  York 
whether  he  prefers  that  there  shall  be  no  interruptions?  If  he 
does,  I  shall  not  ask  any  question. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Mr.  President,  I  should  prefer  it,  because  what  I 
have  to  say  involves  establishing  the  relation  between  a  consid- 
erable number  of  acts  and  instruments,  and  interruptions  natu- 
rally would  destroy  the  continuity  of  my  statement. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  The  question  I  was  about  to  ask  was  purely 
a  historic  one. 

Mr.  ROOT.    I  shall  be  very  glad  to  answer  the  Senator. 
74005—11714 


10 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  The  Senator  has  stated  that  at  the  time  of 
the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  we  were  excluded  from  the  Mosquito 
coast  by  the  protectorate  exercised  by  Great  Britain  over  that 
coast.  My  question  is  this:  Had  we  not  at  that  time  a  treaty 
with  New  Granada  that  gave  us  equal  or  greater  rights  upon 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama  than  were  claimed  even  by  Great 
Britain  over  the  Mosquito  coast? 

Mr.  ROOT.  Mr.  President,  we  had  the  treaty  of  1846  with 
New  Grenada,  under  which  we  undertook  to  protect  *ny  railway 
or  canal  across  the  Isthmus.  But  that  did  not  apply  to  the 
Nicaragua  route,  which  was  then  supposed  to  be  the  most  avail- 
able route  for  a  canal. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  I  quite  agree  with  the  Senator  about  that. 
I  only  wanted  it  to  appear  in  the  course  of  the  argument  that 
we  were  then  under  no  disability  so  far  as  concerned  building 
a  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

Mr.  ROOT.  We  were  under  a  disability  so  far  as  concerned 
building  a  canal  by  the  Nicaragua  route,  which  was  regarded 
as  the  available  route  until  the  discussion  in  the  Senate  after 
1901,  in  which  Senator  Spooner  and  Senator  Hanna  practically 
changed  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  with  regard  to  what  was 
the  proper  route  to  take.  And  in  the  treaty  of  1850,  so  anxious 
were  we  to  secure  freedom  from  the  claims  of  Great  Britain  on 
the  eastern  end  of  the  Nicaragua  route  that,  as  I  have  read,  we 
agreed  that  the  same  contract  should  apply  not  merely  to  the 
Nicaragua  route  but  to  the  whole  of  the  Isthmus.  So  that 
from  that  time  on  the  whole  Isthmus  was  impressed  by  the 
same  obligations  which  were  impressed  upon  the  Nicaragua 
route,  and  whatever  rights  we  had  under  our  treaty  of  1846 
with  New  Grenada  we  were  thenceforth  bound  to  exercise  with 
due  regard  and  subordination  to  the  provisions  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty. 

Mr.  President,  after  the  lapse  of  some  30  years,  during  the 
early  part  of  which  we  were  strenuously  insisting  upon  the  ob- 
servance by  Great  Britain  of  her  obligations  under  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty  and  during  the  latter  part  of  which  we  were 
beginning  to  be  restive  under  our  obligations  by  reason  of  that 

74G95— 11714 


11 

treaty,  we  undertook  to  secure  a  modification  of  it  from  Great 
Britain.  In  the  course  of  that  undertaking  there  was  much 
discussion  and  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  continued 
obligations  of  the  treaty.  But  I  think  that  was  finally  put  at 
rest  by  the  decision  of  Secretary  Olney  in  "the  memorandum 
upon  the  subject  made  by  him  in  the  year  1806.  In  that  memo- 
randum he  said : 

Under  these  circumstances,  upon  every  principle  which  governs  the 
rehifion  to  each  other,  either  of  nations  or  of  individuals,  the  United 
States  is  completely  estopped  from  denying  that  the  treaty  is  in  full 
force  and  vigor. 

If  changed  conditions  now  make  stipulations,  which  were  once 
deemed  advantageous,  either  inapplicable  or  injurious,  the  true  remedy 
is  not  in  ingenious  attempts  to  deny  the  existence  of  the  treaty  or  to 
explain  away  its  provisions,  hut  in  a  direct  and  straightforward  ap- 
plication to  Great  Britain  for  a  reconsideration  of  the  whole  matter. 

We  did  apply  to  Great  Britain  for  a  reconsideration  of  the 
whole  matter,  and  the  result  of  the  application  was  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty.  That  treaty  came  before  the  Senate  in  two 
forms :  First,  in  the  form  of  an  instrument  signed  on  the  5th  of 
February,  1900,  which  was  amended  by  the  Senate;  and,  second, 
in  the  form  of  an  instrument  signed  on  the  18th  of  November. 
1001,  which  continued  the  greater  part  of  the  provisions  of  the 
earlier  instrument,  but  somewhat  modified  or  varied  the  amend- 
ments which  had  been  made  by  the  Senate  to  that  earlier  in- 
strument. 

It  is  really  but  one  process  by  which  the  paper  sent  to  the 
Senate  in  February,  1000,  passed  through  a  course  of  amend' 
uient ;  first,  at  the  hands  of  the  Senate,  and  then  at  the  hand., 
of  the  negotiators  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
with  the  subsequent  approval  of  the  Senate.  In  both  the  first 
form  and  the  last  of  this  treaty  the  preamble  provides  for 
preserving  the  provisions  of  article  8  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty.  Both  forms  provide  for  the  construction  of  the  canal 
under  the  auspices  of  the  United  States  alone  instead  of  its 
construction  under  the  auspices  of  both  countries. 

Both  forms  of  that  treaty  provide  that  the  canal  might  be — 

constructed  under  the  auspices  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
either  directly  at  its  own  cost  or  by  gift  or  loan  of  money  to  Indi- 
viduals or  corporations  or  through  subscription  to  or  purchase  of  stock 
or  shares — 

74C05— 11714 


12 

that  being  substituted  for  the  provisions  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  under  which  both  countries  were  to  be  patrons  of  the  en- 
terprise. 
Under  both  forms  it  was  further  provided  that — 

Subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  present  convention,  the  said  Govern- 
ment— 

The  United  States- 
shall  have  and  enjoy  all  the  rights  incident  to  such  construction,  as 
well  as  the  exclusive  right  of  providing  for  the  regulation  and  manage- 
ment of  the  canal. 

That  provision,  however,  for  the  exclusive  patronage  of  the 
United  States  was  subject  to  the  initial  provision  that  the  modi- 
fication or  change  from  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  was  to  be 
for  the  construction  of  such  canal  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  without  impairing  the  gen- 
eral principle  of  neutralization  established  in  article  8  of  that 
convention. 

Then  the  treaty  as  it  was  finally  agreed  to  provides  that  the 
United  States  "  adopt,  as  the  basis  of  such  neutralization  of 
such  ship  canal,"  the  following  rules,  substantially  as  embodied 
in  the  convention  "  of  Constantinople,  signed  the  29th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1.888,"  for  the  free  navigation  of  the  Suez  Maritime  Canal ; 
that  is  to  say  : 

/'  First.  The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  *  *  *  to  the  vessels 
of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all  nations  "  observing  these  rules  on 
terms  of  entire  equality,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimina- 
tion against  any  nation  or  its  citizens  or  subjects  in  respect  to 
the  conditions  or  charges  of  traffic,  or  otherwise."  Such  con-  / 
ditions  and  charges  of  traffic  shall  be  just  and  equitable. 

Then  follow  rules  relating  to  blockade  and  vessels  of  war,  the 
embarkation  and  disembarkation  of  troops,  and  the  extension 
of  the  provisions  to  the  waters  adjacent  to  the  canal. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  that  rule  must,  of  course,  be  read  in  con- 
nection with  the  provision  for  the  preservation  of  the  principle 
of  neutralization  established  in  article  8  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
convention. 

Let  me  take  your  minds  back  again  to  article  8  of  the  Clay- 
ton-Bulwer convention,  consistently  with  which  we  are  bound 
to  construe  the  rule  established  by  the  Hay-Pauncefote  con- 

74695 — 11714 


13 

vention.  The  principle  of  neutralization  provided  for  by  the 
eighth  article  is  neutralization  upon  terms  of  absolute  equality 
both  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  and  between 
the  United  States  and  all  other  powers. 

It  is  always  understood — 

Says  the  eighth  article — 

by  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  that  the  parties  constructing 
or  owning  the  same — 

That  is,  the  canal — 

shall  impose  no  other  charges  or  conditions  cf  traffic  thereupon  than 
the  aforesaid  Governments  shall  approve  of  as  just  and  equitable,  and 
that  the  same  canals  or  railways,  being  open  to  the  citizens  and  sub- 
jects of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  on  equal  terms,  shall  also 
be  open  on  like  terms  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  every  other  State 
which  is  willing  to  grant  thereto  such  protection  as  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  engage  to  afford. 


Nov 


Mow,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  put  any  construction  upon  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  which  violates  that  controlling  declara- 
tion of  absolute  equality  between  the  citizens  and  subjects  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 

Mr.  President,  when  the  Hay-Pauncefote  convention  was  rati- 
fied by  the  Senate  it  was  in  full  view  of  this  controlling  prin- 
ciple, in  accordance  with  which  their  act  must  be  construed, 
for  Senator  Davis,  in  his  report  from  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Relations,  to  which  I  have  already  referred 

Mr.  McCUMBER.     On  the  treaty  in  its  first  form. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Yes;  the  report  on  the  treaty  in  its  first  form. 
Mr.  Davis  said,  after  referring  to  the  Suez  convention  of  1888 : 

The  United  States  can  not  take  an  attitude  of  opposition  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  great  act  of  October  22,  1888,  without  discrediting  the 
official  declarations  of  our  Government  for  50  years  on  the  neutrality  of 
an  Isthmian  canal  and  its  equal  use  by  all  nations  without  discrimi- 
nation. 

To  set  up  the  selfish  motive  of  gain  by  establishing  a  monopoly  of  a 
highway  that  must  derive  its  income  from  the  patronage  of  all  maritime 
countries  would  be  unworthy  of  the  United  States  if  we  owned  tha 
country  through  which  the  canal  is  to  be  built. 

But  the  location  of  the  canal  belongs  to  other  governments,  from 
whom  we  must  obtain  any  right  to  construct  a  canal  on  their  territory, 
and  it  is  not  unreasonable,  if  the  question  was  new  and  was  not 
involved  in  a  subsisting  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  that  she  should 
question  the  right  of  even  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica  to  grant  to  our 
ships  of  commerce  and  of  war  extraordinary  privileges  of  transit 
through  the  canal. 
74695—11714 


14 

I  shall  revert  to  that  principle  declared  by  Senator  Davis.  1 
continue  the  quotation : 

It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica  would 
grant  to  the  United  States  the  exclusive  control  of  a  canal  through 
those  States  on  terms  less  generous  to  the  other  maritime  nations  than 
those  prescribed  in  the  great  act  of  October  22,  1888,  or  if  we  could 
compel  them  to  give  us  such  advantages  over  other  nations  it  would  not 
be  creditable  to  our  country  to  accept  them. 

That  our  Government  or  our  people  will  furnish  the  money  to  build 
the  canal  presents  the  single  question  whether  it  is  profitable  to  do  so. 
If  the  canal,  as  property,  is  worth  more  than  its  cost,  we  are  not  called 
on  to  divide  the  profits  with  other  nations.  If  it  is  worth  less  and  we 
are  compelled  by  national  necessities  to  build  the  canal,  we  have  no 
right  to  call  on  other  nations  to  make  up  the  loss  to  us.  In  any  view, 
it  is  a  venture  that  we  will  enter  upon  if  it  is  to  our  interest,  and  if 
it  is  otherwise  we  will  withdraw  from  its  further  consideration. 

The  Suez  Canal  makes  no  discrimination  in  its  tolls  in  favor  of  its 
stockholders,  and,  taking  its  profits  or  the  half  of  them  as  our  basis  of 
calculation,  we  will  never  find  it  necessary  to  differentiate  our  rates  of 
toll  in  favor  of  our  own  people  in  order  to  secure  a  very  great  profit  on 
the  investment. 

Mr.  President,  in  view  of  that  declaration  of  principle,  in  the 
face  of  that  declaration,  the  United  States  can  not  afford  to  take 
a  position  at  variance  with  the  rule  of  universal  equality  estab- 
lished in  the  Suez  Canal  convention — equality  as  to  every  stock- 
holder and  all  nonstockholders,  equality  as  to  every  nation 
whether  in  possession  or  out  of  possession.  In  the  face  of  that 
declaration  the  United  States  can  not  afford  to  take  any  other 
position  than  upon  the  rule  of  universal  equality  of  the  Suez 
Canal  convention,  and  upon  the  further  declaration  that  the 
country  owning  the  territory  through  which  this  canal  was  to  ba 
built  would  not  and  ought  not  to  give  any  special  advantage  or 
preference  to  the  United  States  as  compared  with  all  the  other 
nations  of  the  earth.  In  view  of  that  report  the  Senate  rejected 
the  amendment  which  was  offered  by  Senator  Bard,  of  Cali- 
fornia, providing  for  preference  to  the  coastwise  trade  of  the 
United  States.  This  is  the  amendment  which  was  proposed : 

The  United  States  reserves  the  right  in  the  regulation  and  manage- 
ment of  the  canal  to  discriminate  in  respect  of  the  charges  of  traffic 
in 'favor  of  vessels  of  its  own  citizens  engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade. 

I  say,  the  Senate  rejected  that  amendment  upon  this  report, 
which   declared   the   rule   of   universal   equality   without   any 
preference  or  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  United  States  as 
74695—11714 


being  the  meaning  of  the  treaty  and  the  necessary  meaning  of 
the  treaty. 

There  was  still  more  before  the  Senate,  there  was  stiK  more 
before  the  country  to  fix  the  meaning  of  the  treaty.  I  have 
read  the  representations  that  were  made,  the  solemn  declara- 
tions made  by  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain  establishing 
the  rule  of  absolute  equality  without  discrimination  in  favor 
of  the  United  States  or  its  citizens  to  induce  Great  Britain  to 
enter  into  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 

Now,  let  me  read  the  declaration  made  to  Great  Britain  to 
induce  her  to  modify  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  and  give  up 
her  right  to  joint  control  of  the  canal  and  put  in  our  hands 
the  sole  power  to  construct  it  or  patronize  it  or  control  it. 

Mr.  Elaine  said  in  his  instructions  to  Mr.  Lowell  on  June  24, 
1881,  directing  Mr.  Lowell  to  propose  to  Great  Britain  the  modi- 
fication of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 

I  read  his  words : 

The  United  States  recognizes  a  proper  guarantee  of  neutrality  as 
essential  to  the  co-nstruction  and  successful  operation  of  any  highway 
across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and  in  the  last  generation  every  step 
was  taken  by  this  Government  that  is  deemed  requisite  in  the  premises. 
The  necessity  was  foreseen  and  abundantly  provided  for  long  In  ad- 

fvance  of  any  possible  call  for  the  actual  exercise  of  power.  *  *  * 
Nor,  in  time  of  peace,  does  the  United  States  seek  to  have  any  txclu- 

:  sive  privileges  accorded  to  American  ships  in  respect  to  precedence  or 
tolls  thraugJi  an  interoceanic  canal  any  more  than  it  has  sought  like 
privileges  for  American  goods  in  transit  over  the  I^iama  Railway, 
under  the  exclusive  control  of  an  American  corporation.  \  The  extent  of 
the  privileges  of  American  citizens  and  ships  is  measurably  under  the 
treaty  of  1846  by  those  of  Colombian  citizens  and  ships,  fit  would  6e 

•  our  earnest  desire  and  expectation  to  see  the  icorld's^eacejul  commerce 
enjoy  the  same  just,  liberal,  and-  rational  treatment.  I 

Again,  he  said  to  Great  Britain: 

f The  United  States,  as  I  have  before  had  occasion  to  assure  your 
Dordship,  demand  no  exclusive  privileges  in  these  passages,  but  will 
always  exert  their  influence  to  secure  their  free  and  unrestricted 
"benefits,  toth  in  peace  and  war,  to  the  commerce  of  the  icorld.  J 

Mr.  Presidentj^lTwas  upon  that  declaration,  upon  that  self- 
denying  declaration,  upon  that  solemn  assurance,  that  the 
United  States  sought  not  and  would  not  have  any  preference 
for  its  own  citizens  over  the  subjects  and  citizens  of  other 
countries  that  Great  Britain  abandoned  her  rights  under  tht 

74695—11714 


16 

Olay  ton-Bui  wer  tieaty  and  entered  into  the  Hay-Pauiicefote 
treaty,  with  the  clause  continuing  the  principles  of  clause  8, 
which  embodied  these  same  declarations,  and  the  clause  estab- 
lishing the  rule  of  equality  taken  from  the  Suez  Canal  conven- 
tion. We  are  not  at  liberty  to  give  any  other  construction  to 
the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  than  the  construction  which  is  con- 
sistent with  that  declaration. 

Mr.  President,  these  declarations,  made  specifically  and  di- 
rectly to  secure  the  making  of  these  treaties,  do  not  stand  alone. 
For  a  longer  period  than  the  oldest  Senator  has  lived  the 
United  States  has  been  from  time  to  time  making  open  and  pub- 
lic declarations  of  her  disinterestedness,  her  altruism,  her  pur- 
poses, for  the  benefit  of  mankind,  her  freedom  from  desire  or 
willingness  to  secure  special  and  peculiar  advantage  in  respect 
of  transit  across  the  Isthmus.  In  1826  Mr.  Clay,  then  Secre- 
tary of  State  in  the  Cabinet  of  John  Quincy  Adanis,  said,  in  his 
instructions  to  the  delegates  to  the  Panama  Congress  of  that 
year : 

If  a  canal  across  the  Isthmus  be  opened  "  so  as  to  admit  of  the 
passage  of  sea  vessels  from  ocean  to  ocean,  the  benefit  of  it  ought  not 
to  be  exclusively  appropriated  to  any  one  nation,  but  should  be  ex- 
tended to  all  parts  of  the  globe  upon  the  payment  of  a  just  compensa- 
tion for  reasonable  tolls." 

Mr.  Cleveland,  in  his  annual  message  of  18S5,  said : 

The  lapse  of  years  has  abundantly  confirmed  the  wisdom  and  fore- 
sight of  those  earlier  administrations  which,  long  before  the  conditions 
of  maritime  intercourse  were  changed  and  enlarged  by  the  progress 
of  the  age,  proclaimed  the  vital  need  of  interoceanic  transit  across  the 
American  Isthmus  and  consecrated  it  in  advance  to  the  common  use 
of  mankind  by  their  positive  declarations  and  through  the  formal 
obligations  of  treaties.  Toward  such  realization  the  efforts  of  my  ad- 
ministration will  be  applied,  ever  bearing  in  mind  the  principles  on 
which  it  must  rest  and  which  were  declared  in  no  uncertain  tones  by 
Mr;  Cass,  who,  while  Secretary  of  State  in  1858,  announced  that  "  What 
the  United  States  want  in  Central  America  next  to  the  happiness  of 
its  people  Is  the  security  and  neutrality  of  the  interoceanic  routes 
which  lead  through  it." 

By  public  declarations,  by  the  solemn  asseverations  of  our 
treaties  with  Colombia  in  1846,  with  Great  Britain  in  1850,  our 
treaties  with  Nicaragua,  our  treaty  with  Great  Britain  in  1901, 
our  treaty  with  Panama  in  1903,  we  have  presented  to  the  world 
the  most  unequivocal  guaranty  of  disinterested  action  for  the 
common  benefit  of  mankind  and  not  for  our  selfish  advantage. 

74695—11714 


17 

In  ibo  message  which  was  sent  to  Congress  by  President 
Roosevelt  on  the  4th  of  January,  1904,  explaining  the  course  of 
this  Government  regarding  the  revolution  in  Panama  and  the 
making  of  the  treaty  by  which  we  acquired  all  the  title  that 
we  have  upon  the  Isthmus,  President  Roosevelt  said : 

If  ever  a  Government  could  be  said  to  have  received  a  mandate  from 
civilisation  to  effect  an  object  the  accomplishment  of  which  v;as  de- 
manded in  the  interest  of  mankind,  the  United  States  holds  that  posi- 
tion with  regard  to  the  interoceanic  canal. 

Mr.  President,  there  has  been  much  discussion  for  many 
years  among  authorities  upon  international  law  as  to  whether 
artificial  canals  for  the  convenience  of  commerce  did  not  par- 
take of  the  character  of  natural  passageways  to  such  a  degree 
that,  by  the  rules  of  international  law,  equality  must  be  ob- 
served in  the  treatment  of  mankind  by  the  nation  which  has 
possession  and  control.  Many  very  high  authorities  have  as- 
serted that  that  rule  applies  to  the  Panama  Canal  even  without 
a  treaty.  We  base  our  title  upon  the  right  of  mankind  in  the 
Isthmus,  treaty  or  no  treaty.  We  have  long  asserted,  begin- 
ning with  Secretary  Cass,  that  the  nations  of  Central  America 
had  no  right  to  debar  the  world  from  its  right  of  passage  across 
the  Isthmus.  Upon  that  view,  in  the  words  which  I  have 
quoted  from  President  Roosevelt's  message  to  Congress,  we  base 
the  justice  of  our  entire  action  upon  the  Isthmus  which  resulted 
in  our  having  the  Canal  Zone.  We  could  not  have  taken  it 
for  our  selfish  interest ;  we  could  not  have  taken  it  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  an  advantage  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  over  the  other  peoples  of  the  world ;  it  was  only  because 
civilization  had  its  rights  to  passage  across  the  Isthmus  and 
because  we  made  ourselves  the  mandatory  of  civilization  to 
assert  those  rights  that  we  are  entitled  to  be  there  at  all.  On 
the  principles  which  underlie  our  action  and  upon  all  the  decla- 
rations that  we  have  made  for  more  than  half  a  century,  as 
well  as  upon  the  express  and  positive  stipulations  of  our 
treaties,  we  are  forbidden  to  say  we  have  taken  the  custody 
of  the  Canal  Zone  to  give  ourselves  any  right  of  preference 
over  the  other  civilized  nations  of  the  world  beyond  those  rights 
which  go  to  the  owner  of  a  canal  to  have  the  tolls  that  are 
charged  for  passage. 

74095—11714 2 


18 

Well,  Mr.  President,  asserting  that  we  were  acting  for  the 
common  benefit  of  mankind,  willing  to  accept  no  preferential 
right  of  our  own,  just  as  we  asserted  it  to  secure  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty,  just  as  we  asserted  it  to  secure  the  Hay-Paunce-  . 
fote  treaty,  when  we  had  recognized  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
we  made  a  treaty  with  her  on  the  18th  of  November,  1903.  I 
ask  your  attention  now  to  the  provisions  of  that  treaty.  In 
that  treaty  both  Panama  and  the  United  States  recognize  the 
fact  that  the  United  States  was  acting,  not  for  its  own  special 
and  selfish  interest,  but  in  the  interest  of  mankind. 

The  suggestion  has  been  made  that  we  are  relieved  from  the 
obligations  of  our  treaties  with  Great  Britain  because  the  Canal 
Zone  is  our  territory.  It  is  said  that,  because  it  has  become 
ours,  we  are  entitled  to  build  the  canal  on  our  own  territory 
and  do  what  we  please  with  it.  Nothing  can  be  further  from  r 
the  fact.  It  is  not  our  territory,  except  in  trust.  Article  2  of 
treaty  with  Panama  provides : 

The  Republic  of  Panama  grants  to  the  United  States  in  perpetuity  \ 
the  use,  occupation,  and  control  of  a  zone  of  land  and  land  under  water 
for  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation,  sanitation,  and  protection 
,of  said  canal — 

And  for  no  other  purpose — 

of  the  wix3th  of  10  miles  extending  to  the  distance  of  5  miles  on  each 
Bide  of  the  center  line  of  the  route  of  the  canal  to  be  constructed. 


The  Republic  of  Panama  further  grants  to  the  United  States  in  per- 
petuity the  use,  occupation,  and  control  of  any  other  lands  and  waters 
outside  of  the  zone  above  described  which  may  be  necessary  and  con- 
venient for  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation,  sanitation,  and 
protection  of  the  said  canal  or  of  any  auxiliary  canals  or  other  works 
necessary  and  convenient  for  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation, 
sanitation,  and  protection  of  the  said  enterprise. 

Article  3  provides: 

The  Republic  of  Panama  grants  to  the  United  States  all  the  rights, 
power,  and  authority  within  the  zone  mentioned  and  described  in 
article  2  of  this  agreement — 

From  which  I  have  just  read — 

and  within  the  limits  of  all  auxiliary  lands  and  waters  mentioned  and 
described  in  said  article  2  which  the  United  States  would  possess  and 
exercise  if  it  were  the  sovereign  of  the  territory  within  which  said 
lands  and  waters  are  located  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  the  exercise  by 
the  Republic  of  Panama  of  any  such  sovereign  rights,  power,  or  au- 
thority. 

74G95— 11714 


19 


Article  5  provides: 


;u-  \ 

by\ 
of, 


The  Republic  of  Panama  grants  to  the  United  States  in  perpetuity 
a  monopoly  for  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of  any 
system  of  communication  by  means  of  canal  or  railroad  across  its  ter- 
ritory between  the  Caribbean  Sea  and  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

I  now  read  from  article  18: 

The  canal,  when  constructed,  and  the  entrances  thereto  shall  be  neu- 
tral in  perpetuity,  and  shall  be  opened  upon  the  terms  provided  for 
;    section  1  of  article  3  of,  and  in  conformity  with  all  the  stipulations 
1   the  treaty  entered  into  by  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and 
\  Great  Britain  on  November  18,  1901. 

So,  Mr.  President,  far  from  our  being  relieved  of  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  by  reason  of  the  title 
that  we  have  obtained  to  the  Canal  Zone,  we  have  taken  that 
title  impressed  with  a  solemn  trust.  We  have  taken  it  for  no 
purpose  e  -cept  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  a  canal 
in  accordance  with  all  the  stipulations  of  our  treaty  with  Great 
Britain.  We  can  not  be  false  to  those  stipulations  without 
adding  to  the  breach  of  contract  a  breach  of  the  trust  which  we 
have  assumed,  according  to  our  own  declarations,  for  the  benefit 
of  mankind  as  the  mandatory  of  civilization. 

In  anticipation  of  the  plainly-to-be-foreseen  contingency  of  our 
having  to  acquire  some  kind  of  title  in  order  to  construct  the 
canal,  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  provided  expressly  in  article  4 : 

It  is  agreed  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  or  of  interna-     ^ 
/  tional   relations   of  the   country   or   countries   traversed  by  the   before- 
'  mentioned  canal  shall  affect  the  general  principle  of  neutralization  or 
the  obligation  of  the  high  contracting  parties  under  the  present  treaty. 

So  you  will  see  that  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  expressly 
provides  that  its  obligations  shall  continue,  no  matter  what  title 
we  get  to  the  Canal  Zone;  and  the  treaty  by  which  we  get  the 
title  expressly  impresses  upon  it  as  a  trust  the  obligations  of  the 
treaty  with  Great  Britain.  How  idle  it  is  to  say  that  because 
the  Canal  Zone  is  ours  we  can  do  with  it  what  we  please. 

There  is  another  suggestion  made  regarding  the  obligations  of 
this  treaty,  and  that  is  that  matters  relating  to  the  coasting 
trade  are  matters  of  special  domestic  concern,  and  that  nobody 
else  has  any  right  to  say  anything  about  them.  We  did  not 
think  so  when  we  were  dealing  with  the  Canadian  canals.  But 
that  may  not  be  conclusive  as  to  rights  under  this  treaty.  But 
examine  it  for  a  moment. 
74C95— 11714 


20 

It  is  rather  poverty  of  language  than  a  genius  for  definition 
which  leads  us  to  call  a  voyage  from  New  York  to  San  Fran- 
cisco, passing  along  countries  thousands  of  miles  away  from  our 
territory,  "  coasting  trade,"  or  to  call  a  voyage  from  New  York 
to  Manila,  on  the  other  side  of  the  world,  "  coasting  trade." 
'When  we  use  the  term  "coasting  trade"  what  we  really  .mean 
is  that  under  our  navigation  laws  a  voyage  which  begins  and 
ends  at  an  American  port  has  certain  privileges  and  immunities 
and  rights,  and  it  is  necessarily  in  that  sense  that  the  term  is 
used  in  this  statute.  It  must  be  construed  in  accordance  with 
our  statutes. 

Sir,  I  do  not  for  a  moment  dispute  that  ordinary  coasting 
trade  is  a  special  kind  of  trade  that  is  entitled  to  be  treated 
differently  from  trade  to  or  from  distant  foreign  points.  It  is 
ordinarily  neighborhood  trade,  from  port  to  port,  by  which  the 
people  of  a  country  carry  on  their  intercommunication,  often  by 
small  vessels,  poor  vessels,  carrying  cargoes  of  slight  value.  It 
would  be  quite  impracticable  to  impose  upon  trade  of  that  kind 
the  same  kind  of  burdens  which  great  ocean-going  steamers, 
trading  to  the  farthest  parts  of  the  earth,  can  well  bear.  We 
make  that  distinction.  Indeed,  Great  Britain  herself  makes  it, 
although  Great  Britain  admits  all  the  wrorld  to  her  coasting 
trade.  But  it  is  by  quite  a  different  basis  of  classification — 

that  is,  the  statutory  basis — that  we  call  a  voyage  f i  the 

eastern  coast  of  the  United  States  to  the  Orient  a  coasting  voy- 
age, because  it  begins  and  ends  in  an  American  port. 

This  is  a  special,  peculiar  kind  of  trade  wrhich  passes  through 
the  Panama  Canal.  You  may  call  it  "  coasting  trade,"  but  it  is 
unlike  any  other  coasting  trade.  It  is  special  and  peculiar  to 
itself. 

Grant  that  we  are  entitled  to  fix  a  different  rate  of  tolls  for 
that  class  of  trade  from  that  which  would  be  fixed  for  other 
classes  of  trade.  Ah,  yes;  but  Great  Britain  has  her  coasting 
trade  through  the  canal  under  the  same  definition,  and  Mexico 
has  her  coasting  trade,  and  Germany  has  her  coasting  trade, 
and  Colombia  has  her  coasting  trade,  in  the  same  sense  that  we 
have.  You  are  not  at  liberty  to  discriminate  in  fixing  tolls 

74695—11714 


21 

between  a  voyage  from  Portland,  Me.,  to  Portland,  Oreg.,  by  an 
American  ship,  and  a  voyage  from  Halifax  to  Victoria  in  a 
British  ship,  or  a  voyage  from  Vera  Cruz  to  Acapulco  in  a 
Mexican  ship,  because  when  you  do  so  you  discriminate,  not 
between  coasting  trade  and  other  trade,  but  between  American 
ships  and  British  ships,  Mexican  ships,  or  Colombian  ships. 
That  is  a  violation  of  the  rule  of  equality  which  we  have 
solemnly  adopted,  and  asserted  and  reasserted,  and  to  which  we 
are  bound  by  every  consideration  of  honor  and  good  faith. 
Whatever  this  treaty  means,  it  means  for  that  kind  of  trade  as 
well  as  for  any  other  kind  of  trade. 

The  suggestion  has  been  made,  also,  that  we  should  not  con- 
sider that  the  provision  in  this  treaty  about  equality  as  to  tolls 
really  means  what  it  says,  because  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 
the  United  States  would  give  up  the  right  to  defend  itself,  to 
protect  its  own  territory,  to  land  its  own  troops,  and  to  send 
through  the  canal  as  it  pleases  its  own  ships  of  war.  That  is 
disposed  of  by  the  considerations  which  were  presented  to  the 
Senate  in  the  Davis  report,  to  which  I  have  already  referred, 
in  regard  to  the  Suez  convention. 

The  Suez  convention,  from  which  these  rules  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty  were  taken  almost — though  not  quite — tex- 
tually,  contained  other  provisions  which  reserved  to  Turkey  and 
to  Egypt,  as  sovereigns  of  the  territory  through  which  the 
canal  passed — Egypt  as  the  sovereign  and  Turkey  as  the 
suzerain  over  Egypt — all  of  the  rights  that  pertained  to  sov- 
ereigns for  the  protection  of  their  own  territory.  As  when  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  was  made  neither  party  to  the  treaty 
had  any  title  to  the  region  which  would  be  traversed  by  the 
canal,  no  such  clauses  could  be  introduced.  But,  as  was 
pointed  out,  the  rules  which  were  taken  from  the  Suez  Canal 
for  the  control  of  the  canal  management  would  necessarily  be 
subject  to  these  rights  of  sovereignty  which  were  still  to  be 
secured  from  the  countries  owning  the  territory.  That  is 
recognized  by  the  British  Government  in  the  note  which  has 
been  sent  to  us  and  has  been  laid  before  the  Senate,  or  is  in 
the  possession  of  the  Senate,  from  the  British  foreign  office. 

74695 — 11714 


22 

In  Sir  Edward  Grey's  note  of  November  14,  1912,  he  says 
what  I  am  about  to  read.  This  is  an  explicit  disclaimer  of  any 
contention  that  the  provisions  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  ex- 
clude us  from  the  same  rights  of  protection  of  territory  which 
Nicaragua  or  Colombia  or  Panama  would  have  had  as  sover- 
eigns, and  which  we  succeed  to,  pro  tanto,  by  virtue  of  the 
Panama  Canal  treaty. 

SUr  Edward  Grey  says : 

I  notice  that  in  the  course  of  the  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  Panama 
Canal  bill  the  argument  was  used  by  one  of  the  speakers  that  the  third, 
fourth,  and  fifth  rules  embodied  in  article  3  of  the  treaty  show  that 
the  words  "all  nations"  can  not  include  the  United  States,  because, 
,if  the  United  States  were  at  war,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  it 
could  be  intended  to  be  debarred  by  the  treaty  from  using  its  own 
territory  for  revictualling  its  warships  or  landing  troops.  ^ 

The  same  point  may  strike  others  who  read  nothing  but  the  text 
of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  itself,  and  I  think  it  is  therefiere  worth 
while  that  I  should  briefly  show  that  this  argument  is,,  not  well 
founded. 

I  read  this  not  as  an  argument  but  because  it  is  a  formal, 
official  disclaimer  which  is  binding.  ^ 

Sir  Edward  Grey  proceeds : 

The  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  of  1901  aimed  at  carrying  out  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  neutralization  of  the  Panama  Canal  by  subjecting  it  to 
the  same  regime  as  the  Suez  Canal.  Rules  3,  4,  and  5  of  article  3  of 
the  treaty  are  taken  almost  textually  from  articles  4,  ?Cand  C  of  the 
Suez  Canal  Convention  of  1888.  At  the  date  of  the  signature  of  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  the  territory  on  which  the  Isthmian  Canal  was 
to  be  constructed  did  not  belong  to  the  United  States,  consequently 
there  was  no  need  to  insert  in  the  draft  treaty  provisions  correspond- 
ing to  those  in  articles  10  and  13  of  the  Suez  Canal  Convention,  which 
preserve  ,the  sovereign  rights  of  Turkey  and  of  Egypt,  and  stipulate 
that  articles  4  and  5  shall  not  affect  the  right  of  Turkey,  as  the  local 
sovereign,  and  of  Egypt,  within  the  measure  of  her  autonomy,  to  take 
such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  for  securing  the  defense  of  Egypt 
and  the  maintenance  of  public  order,  and,  in  the  case  of  Turkey,  the 
defense  of  her  possessions  on  the  Red  Sea. 

Now  that  the  United  States  has  become  the  practical  sovereign  of 
the  canal,  His  Majesty's  Government  do  not  question  its  title  to  ex- 
ercise belligerent  rights  for  its  protection. 

Mr.  President,  Great  Britain  has  asserted  the  construction  of 
the  Hay-Pauucefote  treaty  of  1901,  the  arguments  for  which  I 
have  been  stating  to  the  Senate.  I  realize,  sir,  that  I  may  be 
wrong.  I  have  often  been  wrong.  I  realize  that  the  gentlemen 
who  have  taken  a  different  view  regarding  the  meaning  of  this 
treaty  may  be  right.  I  do  not  think  so.  But  their  ability  and 

74695—11714 


fairness  of  mind  would  make  it  idle  for  me  not  to  entertain  the 
possibility  that  they  are  right  and  I  am  wrong.  Yet,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, the  question  whether  they  are  right  and  I  am  wrong  de- 
pends upon  the  interpretation  of  the  treaty.  It  depends  upon 
the  interpretation  of  the  treaty  in  the  light  of  all  the  declara- 
tions that  have  been  made  by  the  parties  to  it,  in  the  light  of  the 
nature  of  the  subject  matter  with  which  it  deals. 

Gentlemen  say  the  question  of  imposing  tolls  or  not  imposing 
tolls  upon  our  coastwise  commerce  is  a  matter  of  our  concern. 
Ah!  we  have  made  a  treaty  about  it.  If  the  interpretation  of 
the  treaty  is  as  England  claims,  then  it  is  not  a  matter  of  our 
concern ;  it  is  a  matter  of  treaty  rights  and  duties.  But,  sir,  it 
is  not  a  question  as  to  our  rights  to  remit  tolls  to  our  commerce. 
^Tt  is  a  question  whether  we  can  impose  tolls  upon  British  com- 
merce when  we  have  remitted  them  from  our  own.  That  is  the 
question.  Nobody  disputes  our  right  to  allow  our  own  ships  to 
go  through  the  canal  without  paying  tolls. """What  is  disputed  is 
our  right  to  charge  tolls  against  other  ships  when  we  do  not 
charge  them  against  our  own.  That  is,  pure  and  simple,  a  ques- 
tion of  international  right  and  duty,  and  depends  upon  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  treaty. 

Sir,  we  have  another  treaty,  made  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  on  the  4th  of  April,  1908,  in  which  the  two 
nations  have  agreed  as  follows : 

Differences  which  may  arise  of  a  legal  nature  or  relating  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  treaties  existing  between  the  two  contracting  parties 
and  which  it  may  not  have  been  possible  to  settle  by  diplomacy,  shall 
be  referred  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  established  at  The 
Hague  by  the  convention  of  the  29th  of  July,  1899,  provided,  neverthe- 
less, that  they  do  not  affect  the  vital  interests,  the  independence,  or 
the  honor  of  the  two  contracting  States,  and  do  not  concern  the  inter- 
ests of  third  parties. 

Of  course,  the  question  of  the  rate  of  tolls  on  the  Panama 
Canal  does  not  affect  any  nation's  vital  interests.  It  does  not 
affect  the  independence  or  the  hoiior  of  either  of  these  contract- 
ing States.  We  have  a  difference  relating  to  the  interpretation 
of  this  treaty,  and  that  is  all  there  is  to  it.  We  are  bound,  by 
this  treaty  of  arbitration,  not  to  stand  with  arrogant  assertion 
upon  our  own  Government's  opinion  as  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  treaty,  not  to  require  that  Great  Britain  shall  suffer  what 

74G95— 11714 


24 

she  deems  injustice  by  violation  of  the  treaty,  or  else  go  to  war. 
We  are  bound  to  say,  "  We  keep  the  faith  of  our  treaty  of  arbi- 
tration, and  we  will  submit  the  question  as  to  what  this  treaty 
means  "to  an  impartial  tribunal  of  arbitration." 
1  \/  Mr.  President,  if  we  stand  in  the  position  of  arrogant  refusal 
to  submit  the  questions  arising  upon  the  interpretation  of  this 
treaty  to  arbitration,  we  shall  not  only  violate  our  solemn  obli- 
gation, but  we  shall  be  false  to  all  the  principles  that  we  have 
asserted  to  the  world,  and  that  we  have  urged  upon  mankind. 
We  have  been  the  apostle  of  arbitration.  We  have  been  urging 
it  upon  the  other  civilized  nations.  Presidents,  Secretaries  of 
State,  ambassadors,  and  ministers — aye,  Congresses,  the  Senate 
and  the  House,  all  branches  of  our  Government  have  committed 
the  United  States  to  the  principle  ~  of  arbitration  irrevocably, 
unequivocally,  and  we  have  urged  it  in  season  and  out  of 
season  on  the  rest  of  mankind. 

Sir,  I  can  not  detain  the  Senate  by  more  than  beginning  upon 
the  expressions  that  have  come  from  our  Government  upon  this 
subject,  but  I  will  ask  your  indulgence  while  I  call  your  atten- 
tion to  a  few  selected  from  the  others. 

On  the  9th  of  June,  1874,  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  reported  and  the  Senate  adopted  this  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  United  States  having  at  heart  the  cause  of  peace 
everywhere,  and  hoping  to  help  its  permanent  establishment  between 
nations,  hereby  recommend  the  adoption  of  arbitration  as  a  great  and 
practical  method  for  the  determination  of  international  difference,  to 
be  maintained  sincei-ely  and  in -good  faith,  so  that  war  may  cease  to 
be  regarded  as  a  proper  form  of  trial  between  nations. 

On  the  17th  of  June,  1874,  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs 
of  the  House  adopted  this  resolution : 

Whereas  war  is  at  all  times  destructive  of  the  material  interests  of  a 
people,  demoralizing  in  its  tendencies,  and  at  variance  with  an  en- 
lightened public  sentiment ;  and  whereas  differences  between  nations 
should  in  the  interests  of  humanity  and  fraternitij  be  adjusted,  if 
possible,  by  international  arbitration:  Therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  United  States  being  devoted  to  the 
policy  of  peace  with  all  mankind,  enjoining  its  blessings  and  hoping 
for  its  permanence  and  its  universal  adoption,  hereby  through  their 
representatives  in  Congress  recommend  such  arbitration  as  a  rational 
substitute  for  war ;  and  they  further  recommend  to  the  treaty-making 
power  of  the  Government  to  provide,  if  practicable,  that  hereafter  in 
treaties  made  between  the  United  States  and  foreign  powers  war  shall 
74695—11714 


25 

not  be  declared  by  either  of  the  contracting  parties  against  the  other 
until  efforts  shall  have  been  made  to  adjust  all  alleged  cause  of  differ- 
ence by  impartial  arbitration. 

On  the  same  17th  of  June,  1874,  the  Senate  adopted  this 
resolution : 

Resolved,  etc.,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  Is  hereby 
authorized  and  requested  to  negotiate  with  all  civilized  powers  who 
may  be  willing  to  enter  into  such  negotiations  for  the  establishment  of 
an  international  system  whereby  matters  in  dispute  between  different 
Governments  agreeing  thereto  may  be  adjusted  by  arbitration,  and,  if 
possible,  without  recourse  to  war. 

On  the  14th  of  June,  1SSS,  and  again  on  the  14th  of  February, 
1S90,  the  Senate  and  the  House  adopted  a  concurrent  resolution 
in  the  words  which  I  now  read : 

Resolved  "by  the  Senate  (the  House  of  Representatives  concurring), 
That  the  President  be,  and  is  hereby,  requested  to  invite,  from  time  to 
time,  as  fit  occasions  may  a.rise,  negotiations  with  any  Government 
with  which  the  United  States  has,  or  may  have,  diplomatic  relations,  to 
the  end  that  any  differences  or  disputes  arising  between  the  two  Gov- 
ernments which  can  not  be  adjusted  by  diplomatic  agency  may  be 
referred  to  arbitration  and  be  peaceably  adjusted  by  such  means. 

This  was  concurred  in  by  the  House  on  the  3d  of  April,  1890. 

Mr.  president,  in  pursuance  of  those  declarations  by  both 
Houses  of  Congress  the  Presidents  and  the  Secretaries  of  State 
and  the  diplomatic  agents  of  the  United  States,  doing  their 
bounden  duty,  have  been  urging  arbitration  upon  the  people  of 
the  world.  Our  representatives  in  The  Hague  conference  of 
1899,  and  in  The  Hague  conference  of  1907,  and  in  the  Pan 
American  conference  in  "Washington,  and  in  the  Pan  American 
conference  in  Mexico,  and  in  the  Pan  American  conference  in 
Rio  de  Janeiro  were  instructed  to  urge  and  did  urge  and  pledge 
the  United  States  in  the  most  unequivocal  and  urgent  terms 
to  support  the  principle  of  arbitration  upon  all  questions  capable 
of  being  submitted  to  a  tribunal  for  a  decision. 

Under  those  instructions  Mr.  Hay  addressed  the  people  of 
the  entire  civilized  world  with  the  request  to  come  into  treaties 
of  arbitration  with  the  United  States.  Here  was  his  letter. 
After  quoting  from  the  resolutions  and  from  expressions  by 
the  President  he  said : 

Moved  by  these  views,  the  President  has  charged  me  to  instruct  you 
to   ascertain   whether   the    Government   to   which    you   are    accredited, 
74695—11714 


26 

which  he  has  reason  to  believe  is  equally  desirous  of  advancing  the 
principle  of  international  arbitration,  is  willing  to  conclude  with  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  an  arbitration  treaty  of  like  tenor  to 
the  arrangement  concluded  between  France  and  Great  Britain  on  Octo- 
ber 14,  1903. 

That  was  the  origin  of  this  treaty.  The  treaties  made  by 
Mr.  Hay  were  not  satisfactory  to  the  Senate  because  of  the 
question  about  the  participation  of  the  Senate  in  the  make-up 
of  the  special  agreement  of  submission.  Mr.  Hay's  successor 
modified  that  on  conference  with  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Re- 
lations of  the  Senate,  and  secured  the  assent  of  the  other  coun- 
tries of  the  world  to  the  treaty  with  that  modification.  We 
have  made  25  of  these  treaties  of  arbitration,  covering  the 
greater  part  of  the  world,  under  the  direction  of  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  and  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  and  in  accordance  with  the  traditional  policy 
of  the  United  States,  holding  up  to  the  world  the  principle  of 
peaceful  arbitration. 

One  of  these  treaties  is  here,  and  under  it  Great  Britain  is 
demanding  that  the  question  as  to  what  the  true  interpreta- 
tion of  our  treaty  about  the  canal  is  shall  be  submitted  to  deci- 
sion and  not  be  made  the  subject  of  war  or  of  submission  to 
what  she  deems  injustice  to  avoid  war. 

In  response  to  the  last  resolution  which  I  have  read,  the  con- 
current resolution  passed  by  the  Senate  and  the  House  request- 
ing the  President  to  enter  into  the  negotiations  which  resulted 
in  these  treaties  of  arbitration,  the  British  House  of  Com- 
mons passed  a  resolution  accepting  the  overture.  On  the  IGth 
of  July,  1893,  the  House  of  Commons  adopted  this  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  this  house  has  learnt  with  satisfaction  that  both 
Houses  of  the  United  States  Congress  have,  by  resolution,  requested 
the  President  to  invite  from  time  to  time,  as  fit  occasions  may  arise, 
negotiations  with  any  government  with  which  the  United  States  have  or 
may  have  diplomatic  relations,  to  the  end  that  any  differences  or  dis- 
putes arising  between  the  two  governments  which  can  not  be  adjusted 
by  diplomatic  agency  may  be  referred  to  arbitration  and  peaceably 
adjusted  by  such  means,  and  that  this  house,  cordially  sympathizing 
with  the  purpose  in  view,  expresses  the  hope  that  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment will  lend  their  ready  cooperation  to  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  upon  the  basis  of  the  foregoing  resolution. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  did,  and  thence  came  this  treaty. 

74695—11714 


27 

Mr.  President,  what  revolting  hypocrisy  we  convict  ourselves 
of,  if  after  all  this,  the  first  time  there  comes  up  a  question  in 
which  we  have  an  interest,  the  first  time  there  comes  up  a  ques- 
tion of  difference  about  the  meaning  of  a  treaty  as  to  which  we 
fear  we  may  be  beaten  in  an  arbitration,  we  refuse  to  keep  our 
agreement?  Where  will  be  our  self-respect  if  we  do  that? 
Where  will  be  that  respect  to  which  a  great  nation  is  entitled 
from  the  other  nations  of  the  earth? 

I  have  read  from  what  Congress  has  said. 

Let  me  read  something  from  President  Grant's  annual  mes- 
sage of  December  4,  1871.  He  is  commenting  upon  the  arbitra- 
tion provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1871,  in  which  Great  Britain 
submitted  to  arbitration  our  claims  against  her,  known  as  the 
Alabama  claims,  in  which  Great  Britain  submitted  those  claims 
where  she  stood  possibly  to  lose  but  not  possibly  to  gain  any- 
thing, and  submitted  them  against  the  most  earnest  and  violent 
protest  of  many  of  her  own  citizens.  Gen.  Grant  said : 

The  year  has  been  an  eventful  one  in  witnessing  two  great  nations 
speaking  one  language  and  having  one  lineage,  settling  by  peaceful  arbi- 
tration disputes  of  long  standing  and  liable  at  any  time  to  bring  those 
nations  into  costly  and  bloody  conflict.  An  example  has  been  set  which, 
if  successful  in  its  final  issue,  may  be  followed  by  other  civilized  nations 
and  finally  be  the  means  of  returning  to  productive  industry  millions  of 
men  now  maintained  to  settle  the  disputes  of  nations  by  the  bayonet 
and  by  broadside. 

Under  the  authority  of  these  resolutions  our  delegates  in  the 
first  Pan  American  conference  at  Washington  secured  the  adop- 
tion of  this  resolution  April  IS,  1890: 

ARTICLE  1.  The  Republics  of  North,  Central,  and  South  America 
hereby  adopt  arbitration  as  a  principle  of  American  international  law 
for  the  settlement  of  the  differences,  disputes,  or  controversies  that 
may  arise  between  two  or  more  of  them. 

And  this: 

The  International  American  Conference  resolves  that  this  confer- 
ence, having  recommended  arbitration  for  the  settlement  of  disputes 
among  the  Republics  of  America,  begs  leave  to  express  the  wish  that 
controversies  between  them  and  the  nations  of  Europe  may  be  settled 
in  the  same  friendly  manner. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  the  Government  of  ettch  nation  herein 
represented  communicate  this  wish  to  all  friendly  powers. 

74695—11714 


28 

Upon  that  Mr.  Elaine,  that  most  vigorous  and  virile  Amer- 
ican, in  his  address  as  the  presiding  officer  of  that  first. Pan 
American  conference  in  Washington  said: 

If,  in  this  closing  hour,  the  conference  had  but  one  deed  to  celebrate 
we  should  dare  call  the  world's  attention  to  the  deliberate,  confident, 
solemn  dedication  of  two  great  continents  to  peace  and  to  the  pros- 
perity which  has  peace  fot  its  foundation.  We  hold  up  this  new 
Magna  Chart*,  which  abolishes  war  and  substitutes  arbitration  betwaen 
the  American  Republics,  as  the  first  and  great  fruit  of  the  International 
American  Conference.  That  noblest  of  Americans,  the  aged  poet  and 
philanthropist,  Whittier,  is  the  first  to  send  his  salutation  and  his 
benediction,  declaring,  "  If  in  the  spirit  of  peace  the  American  confer- 
ence agrees  upon  a  rule  of  arbitration  which  shall  make  war  in  this 
hemisphere  well-nigh  impossible,  its  sessions  will  prove  one  of  the  most 
important  events  in  the  history  of  the  world." 

President  Arthur  in  his  nmiual  message  of  December  4,  1882, 
said,  in  discussing  the  proposition  for  a  Pan  American  con- 
ference : 

I  am  unwilling  to  dismiss  this  subject  without  assuring  you  of  my 
support  of  any  measure  the  wisdom  of  Congress  may  devise  for  the 
promotion  of  peace  on  this  continent  and  throughout  the  world,  and  I 
trust  the  time  is  nigh  when,  with  the  universal  assent  of  civilized 
peoples,  all  international  differences  shall  be  determined  without  resort 
to  arms  by  the  benignant  processes  of  arbitration. 

President  Harrison  in  his  message  of  December  3,  1889,  said 
concerning  the  Pan  American  conference: 

But  while  the  commercial  results  which  it  is  hoped  will  follow  this 
conference  are  worthy  of  pursuit  and  of  the  great  interests  they  have 
excited,  it  is  believed  that  the  crowning  benefit  will  be  found  in  the 
better  securities  which  may  be  devised  for  the  maintenance  of  peace 
among  all  American  nations  and  the  settlement  of  all  contentions  by 
methods  that  a  Chriotian,  civilization  can  approve. 

President  Cleveland,  in  his  message  of  December  4,  1893, 
.•aid,  concerning  the  resolution  of  the  British  Parliament  of 
July  16,  1893,  which  I  have  already  read,  and  commenting  on 
the  concurrent  resolution  of  February  14  and  April  18,  1890: 

It  affords  me  signal  pleasure  to  lay  this  parliamentary  resolution 
before  the  Congress  and  to  express  my  sincere  gratification  that  the  senti- 
ment of  two  great  kindred  nations  is  thus  authoritatively  manifested  in 
ravor  of  the  rational  and  peaceable  settlement  of  international  quarrels 
by  honorable  resort  to  arbitration. 

President  McKinley,  in  his  message  of  December  6,  1897,  said : 

International   arbitration   can  not  be  omitted   from   the   list  of  sub- 
jects claiming  our  consideration.     Events  have  only  served  to  strengthen 
the  general  views  on  this  question  expressed  in  my  inaugural  address. 
74G05— 11714 


29 

The  best  sentiment  of  the  civilized  world  is  moving  toward  the  settle- 
ment of  differences  between  nations  without  resorting  to  the  horrors 
of  war.  Treaties  embodying  these  humane  principles  on  broad  lines 
without  in  any  way  imperiling  our  interests  or  our  honor  shall  have  my 
constant  encouragement. 

President  Roosevelt,  in  his  message  of  December  3,  1005,  said: 
I  earnestly  hope  that  the  conference — • 
The  second  Hague  conference — 

may  be  able  to  devise  some  way  to  make  arbitration  between  nations 
the  customary  way  of  settling  international  disputes  in  all  save  a  few 
classes  of  cases,  which  should  themselves  be  sharply  defined  and  rigidly 
limited  as  the  present  governmental  and  social  development  of  the  world 
will  permit.  If  possible,  there  should  be  a  general  arbitration  treaty 
negotiated  among  all  nations  represented  at  the  conference. 

Oh,  Mr.  President,  are  we  Pharisees?  Have  we  bean  insin- 
cere and  false?  Have  we  been  pretending  in  all  these  long  years 
'  of  resolution  and  declaration  and  proposal  and  urgency  for  arbi- 
tration? Are  we  ready  now  to  admit  that  our  country,  that  its 
Congresses  and  its  Presidents,  have  all  been  guilty  of  false 
pretense,  of  humbug,  of  talking  to  the  galleries,  of  fine  words  to 
secure  applause,  and  that  the  instant  we  have  an  interest  we 
are  ready  to  falsify  every  declaration,  every  promise,  and 
every  principle?  But  we  must  do  that  if  we  arrogantly  insist 
that  we  alone  will  determine  upon  the  interpretation  of  this 
treaty  and  will  refuse  to  abide  by  the  agreement  of  our  treaty 
of  arbitration.  , 

Mr.  President,  what  is  all  this  for?  Is  the  game  worth  the  7 
candle?  4fs  it  worth  while  to  put  ourselves  in  a  position  and  to 
remain  in  a  position  to  maintain  which  we  may  be  driven  to 
repudiate  our  principles,  our  professions,  and  our  agreements 
for  the  purpose  of  conferring  a  money  benefit — not  very  great, 
not  very  important,  but  a  money  benefit — at  the  expense  of  the  | 
Treasury  of  the  United  States,  upon  the  most  highly  and  abso- 
lutely protected  special  industry  in  the  United  States?  Is  it 
worth  while?  We  refuse  to  help  our  foreign  shipping,  which  i» 
in  competition  with  the  lower  wages  and  the  lower  standard  of 
living  of  foreign  countries,  and  we  are  proposing  to  do  this 
for  a  part  of  our  coastwise  shipping  which  has  now  by  law  me 
absolute  protection  of  a  statutory  monopoly  and  which  needs 
110  help. 

74695—11714 


30 

Mr.  President,  there  is  but  one  alternative  consistent  with 
self-respect.  We  must  arbitrate  the  interpretation  of  this  treaty 
or  we  must  retire  from  the  position  we  have  taken. 

O  Senators,  consider  for  a  moment  what  it  is  that  we  are 
doing.  We  all  love  our  country;  we  are  all  proud  of  its  his- 
tory; we  are  all  full  of  hope  and  courage  for  its  future;  we  love 
its  good  name;  we  desire  for  it  that  power  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth  which  will  enable  it  to  accomplish  still  greater, 
things  for  civilization  than  it  has  accomplished  in  its  noble  past. 
Shall  we  make  ourselves  in  the  minds  of  the  world  like  unto  the 
man  who  in  his  own  community  is  marked  as  astute  and  cun- 
ning to  get  out  of  his  obligations?  Shall  we  make  ourselves 
like  unto  the  man  who  is  known  to  be  false  to  his  agreements; 
false  to  his  pledged  word?  Shall  we  have  it  understood  the 
whole  world  over  that  "  you  must  look  out  for  the  United  States 
or  she  will  get  the  advantage  of  you " ;  that  we  are  clever 
and  cunning  to  get  the  better  of  the  other  party  to  an  agree- 
ment, and  tha.t  at  the  end — 

Mr.  BRANDEGEE.     "  Slippery  "  would  be  a  better  word. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Yes;  I  thank  the  Senator  for  the  suggestion — 
"  slippery."  Shall  we  in  our  generation  add  to  those  claims  to 
honor  and  respect  that  our  fathers  have  established  for  our 
country  good  cause  that  we  shall  be  considered  slippery? 

It  is  worth  while,  Mr.  President,  to  be  a  citizen  of  a  great 
country,  but  size  alone  is  not  enough  to  make  a  country  great. 
^.  country  must  be  great  in  its  ideals ;  it  must  be  great-hearted ; 
it  must  be  noble;  it  must  despise  and  reject  all  smallness  and 
meanness;  it  must  be  faithful  to  its  word;  it  must  keep  the 
faith  of  treaties ;  it  must  be  faithful  to  its  mission  of  civiliza- 
tion in  order  that  it  shall  be  truly  great.  It  is  because  we 
believe  that  of  our  country  that  we  are  proud,  aye,  that  the 
alien  with  the  first  step  of  his  foot  upon  our  soil  is  proud  to 
be  a  part  of  this  great  democracy. 

Let  us  put  aside  the  idea  of  small,  petty  advantage;  let  us 
treat  this  situation  and  these  obligations  in  our  relation  to 
this  canal  in  that  large  way  which  befits  a  great  nation. 

74695—11714 


31 

Mr.  President,  bow  sad  it  would  be  if  we  were  to  dim  tbe 
splendor  of  tbat  great  achievement  by  drawing  across  it  tbe 
mark  of  petty  selfishness;  if  we  were  to  diminish  and  reduce 
for  generations  to  come  the  power  and  influence  of  this  free 
Republic  for  the  uplifting  and  the  progress  of  mankind  by  de- 
stroying the  respect  of  mankind  for  us !  How  sad  it  would  be 
if  yon  and  I,  Senators,  were  to  make  ourselves  responsible  for 
destroying  that,  bright  and  inspiring  ideal  which  has  enabled 
free  America  to  lead  the  world  in  progress  toward  liberty  and 
justice ! 

74693—11714 

o 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN     INITIAL     FINE    OF    25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENAL™ 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON 


MAY  3    193 
APR  11  1934 


1934 


MAY  12  1941 


DEC  9  1941  M 


,.7  ma 


APB20'B7-EM 


LD  21-50m-l,'3 


